Validity and contributions to pain severity from the Central Aspects of Pain (CAP) questionnaire in rheumatoid arthritis

Background: The central nervous system (CNS) contributes to pain perception across musculoskeletal conditions. The Central Aspects of Pain (CAP) questionnaire captures a single score associated with quantitative sensory testing (QST) evidence of CNS dysfunction validated in knee osteoarthritis. Given the different pathophysiology of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), an inflammatory polyarthritis this cross-sectional study assessed CAP’s psychometric properties and its association with pain in RA. Methods: Adults with RA were recruited from Nottinghamshire, London and Cardiff. Participants completed CAP and reported pain using a numerical rating scale. A subgroup underwent additional assessments, including quantitative sensory testing (QST; Pressure Pain detection Threshold, Temporal Summation, Conditioned Pain Modulation), Disease Activity Score-28, C-reactive protein, questionnaires addressing pain and related characteristics, and Central Sensitization Inventory short form (CSI-9). Cronbach alpha, confirmatory factor (CFA) and Rasch measurement theory (RMT) assessed CAP’s reliability and validity. Multivariable linear regression modelled contributions to pain by inflammation indices and CAP or CSI-9. Results: The 380 participants (73% female, median 63y) reported average pain over the past four weeks of 6/10 and a CAP score of 9/16. CAP demonstrated acceptable reliability (ICC(2,1)=0.71), CFA fit (CFI=0.99, TLI=0.99, RMSEA=0.034, SRMR=0.03), and internal consistency (α=0.82). CAP was significantly associated with pain (0.50≤β≤0.57) but not QST. CAP explained 33% of pain variance, rising to 42% with inflammation, age, sex, and BMI. CSI-9 correlated with pain, not QST and explained less pain variance than CAP. Conclusion: CAP is reliable and valid for use with people with RA and explains RA pain variance better than inflammation or CSI-9.

Publication Details

Journal
Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham)
Published
2025-03-30
Primary Topic
Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Validity and contributions to pain severity from the Central Aspects of Pain (CAP) questionnaire in rheumatoid arthritis

Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham)
Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
article

Validity and contributions to pain severity from the Central Aspects of Pain (CAP) questionnaire in rheumatoid arthritis

article en

Abstract

Background: The central nervous system (CNS) contributes to pain perception across musculoskeletal conditions. The Central Aspects of Pain (CAP) questionnaire captures a single score associated with quantitative sensory testing (QST) evidence of CNS dysfunction validated in knee osteoarthritis. Given the different pathophysiology of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), an inflammatory polyarthritis this cross-sectional study assessed CAP’s psychometric properties and its association with pain in RA. Methods: Adults with RA were recruited from Nottinghamshire, London and Cardiff. Participants completed CAP and reported pain using a numerical rating scale. A subgroup underwent additional assessments, including quantitative sensory testing (QST; Pressure Pain detection Threshold, Temporal Summation, Conditioned Pain Modulation), Disease Activity Score-28, C-reactive protein, questionnaires addressing pain and related characteristics, and Central Sensitization Inventory short form (CSI-9). Cronbach alpha, confirmatory factor (CFA) and Rasch measurement theory (RMT) assessed CAP’s reliability and validity. Multivariable linear regression modelled contributions to pain by inflammation indices and CAP or CSI-9. Results: The 380 participants (73% female, median 63y) reported average pain over the past four weeks of 6/10 and a CAP score of 9/16. CAP demonstrated acceptable reliability (ICC(2,1)=0.71), CFA fit (CFI=0.99, TLI=0.99, RMSEA=0.034, SRMR=0.03), and internal consistency (α=0.82). CAP was significantly associated with pain (0.50≤β≤0.57) but not QST. CAP explained 33% of pain variance, rising to 42% with inflammation, age, sex, and BMI. CSI-9 correlated with pain, not QST and explained less pain variance than CAP. Conclusion: CAP is reliable and valid for use with people with RA and explains RA pain variance better than inflammation or CSI-9.

Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 38%
Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Validity and contributions to pain severity from the Central Aspects of Pain (CAP) questionnaire in rheumatoid arthritis · Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS